Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 22 January 2005

George W. Bush and Hatfield's allegations

Someone has restored the section you have repeatedly removed, so I've edited it to clarify the source of the allegations. Hatfield said he confirmed the cocaine bust story with unnamed sources close to the Bush family. Not having the sources, and without any records to support the story, we cannot say whether Hatfield's allegations are true or false. They're plausible, however, and not something that should just be kicked under the carpet.

Rather than a partisan approach, Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view (NPOV). The essence of this can be expressed as follows: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". The founder, Jimmy Wales. has described the neutral point of view principle on Misplaced Pages as "non-negotiable". It's a rule we must all follow as contributors.

If as appears to me you are fairly new to Misplaced Pages, you may find this a little difficult to get used to, but I urge you to watch how talk pages are used to iron out differences of opinion so that a form of words that conforms to NPOV can be found. If you have problems with the current form of words--for instance, you seem to be concerned that allegations are being treated as facts rather than opinions--please join the discussion on Talk:George W. Bush. We should be able to work something out without engaging in edit wars. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plausible doesn't cut it

I disagree in regards to the George Bush article. J.H. Hatfield's book has no proven facts, only assertions and inuendo. Therefore, in an effort to be NPOV I still continue to state that the reference to this book and the allegations of cocaine use by President George Bush are not what I can say are good examples of NPOV. They are instead placed in the article purely from the standpoint of POV and that POV is an effort to slander, not an effort to educate. With that much said, and in light of the fact that I obviously have a serious difference in perspective with the major contributors to the George Bush article, I would like to clearly state that I feel that this one point is only a minute part of the problem with that article. I feel that the entire article is rubbish and beyond any hope of repair because the major contributors are those that have a POV of dislike of George Bush to an extreme and it is impossible for them to adopt a NPOV. --MONGO|Talk

I've already laid out the essence of NPOV for you. It's "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." So in my edit to the restored paragraph about Hatfield's allegations I gave more background detail (the circulated email discussed in Salon, the three people close to the Bush family that Hatfield claimed acknowledged the story of the alleged coke bust and coverup). The section also contains information about the revelations about Hatfield's felony conviction, which effectively killed his credibility and probably led to his suicide. I do this because it constituted a significant investigation of moderately serious allegations about George W. Bush's early adult life; to leave it out would be a serious omission.

If you think I've got the balance of facts, or facts about opinions, wrong, feel free to obtain more facts, or facts about opinions, and add them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jeez... are we writing an article about George Bush here or someone else? I don't care to further discredit Hatfield, he did that for himself, and wrote the book just to make a buck...would anyone buy it if he didn't have slander to sell? The article isn't worthy of any credit as far as being a worthwhile enterprise of research...it is just too leftist, angry and well, the main contributors are biased beyond hope. --MONGO|Talk

Could you explain which parts of the article you think are leftist and which parts appear to be angry? I have to admit that the article seems to my tastes to be, if anything, a little dry, but is refreshingly free of the hectoring tones of left and right partisan propaganda. But if you could give an example perhaps we could discuss it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony...let's explain so you understand...I think this entire GEORGE BUSH article reeks of leftist redundancy and I am not going to detail it for you. I can say that I would NEVER recommend this source as a point of reference for anyone doing legitimate research on George Bush. I stated that there are published articles, books and related material that portray Adolph Hitler as a different man than the one we know to be true and that these articles are so ridiculous that we would never even mention them on any Wiki page about that man. We accept Hitler as the one of the biggest mistakes of evolution and as a matter of providing a factual based accord of his misdeeds, these published books which cast him in a completely different light and are without basis in fact, are OMITTED. But this rule doesn't apply for the major contributors to the George Bush article. Repeatedly, ad nauseum, references are made that attempt to show that George Bush is a cocaine user or at least was, that he is still a drunk and these references are all from questionable sources. My opponents in this seem to think that the allegations are admissible based on the fact that someone said them...and therefore follow WIKI rules...I say, they are to be OMITTED because they are of a questionable source that has no PROOF and unless it can be shown to be TRUE, they have no place here. I say that they are in the article because the major contributors are leftist and are anti Bush and therefore there is no hope they can be swayed. --MONGO 13:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea for writing an encyclopedia--omit all opinions that are not provable--but would be rather difficult to implement. We wouldn't be able to report Adolf Hitler's belief that the Jews were an inferior race because that cannot be proven. We wouldn't be able to report on any politicians' opinions at all except perhaps very old ones and then only that portion of their beliefs that had been proven true by events. The allegations of criminal conduct by President Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal? Special Prosecutor Ray reported to Congress: "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." The Whitewater allegations could not stand in a court of law, so we could not report them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Haven't you heard of Hitler's book Mein Kamph? Perhaps it wasn't spoken that Hitler was anti semtic, but it certainly was spoken that he believed the "Aryan" peoples to be superior to all others. The whitewater scandal is like comparing a mountain to an anthill to the alleged cocaine use by George Bush. Sure, it was proven that there was reasonable doubt that the Clintons had nothing to do with the allegations yet it is reported because it is of a different magnitude. Grand jury investigations, millions and millions of your tax dollars, special prosecutors sure do sound to me to be a little bit more serious than the writings of a convicted felon whose book was pulled from shelfs and a known leftist enterprise such as Salon which has operated on a narrow margin, needs money or attention and has an axe to grind. --MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it...at all. This article is a worthless rag and the only place it is acceptable is here. I'm not going to discuss it any further and you can say whatever you wish as my opinion is different which means that since it is in opposition to yours, we are at an impasse. It is unfortunate that preposterous rubbish like this can be used in what is to be considered a point of reference and is, along with a considerable more unsubstantiated baloney, included in this article.--MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers and books use confidential sources all the time. That's usually the only way to get the dirt -- otherwise nobody would talk. It's an accepted, legitimate practice in journalism. By all means, discredit it (in NPOV language of course), but it was a big enough controversy that it needs to be included. Timbo ( t a l k ) 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't that big a controversy....the fact that the slanders were ever published were the controversy or did you sleep through that part when the "big story broke". --MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend you visit Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette and Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. You're not going to convince other people that you're right by being patronizing and rude. I hope you can separate yourself from your political persuasion and actually contribute constructively. Timbo ( t a l k ) 21:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let's see, I didn't think I was hot or rude, quite the contrary. I feel that the warnings and etc. I have gotten such as this from you are rude as I don't remember going into your talk page and handing out advice on courtesy. I fail to see how the slander that constitutes the George Bush article is anything other than the political persuasion of the far left and fail to see how the incorporation of so much inuendo and heresay makes for good reporting. Perhaps it is the likes of your political persuasion that won't allow you to edit the article with a NPOV, not mine. As I mentioned, I consider this an impossible impasse.--MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)